Jimmy Wales on #GamerGate Wikipedia Article Message 3

Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:23:37 -0400
From: The Leader of GamerGate <GamerGateLeader@gmail.com>
To: Jimmy Wales <REDACTED>
Subject: Re: #GamerGate Article Issues (I'm bubblesort1 on twitter)

Thank you for your thoughtful message.

You caught me on Goodwin's law... aww, that's so embarrassing!  I was
tired when I was writing, it won't happen again.  You're right.  I
should have compared Leigh Alexander talking about #GamerGate to Sarah
Palin talking about Democrats or Hillary Clinton talking about
Republicans.  It's just so out there it's offensive to my people.

Of course I'll keep this private, not just because you assumed it would
be but because I feel like being nice to you.  If we were in public this
message would be full of vitriol.  Let me explain why.

When somebody says they have been harassed online or talks about an
incident of harassment the first reaction must never be skepticism or
changing the subject.  Ever.  Unless you have specific knowledge of the
event, like the Emma Watson case, for example, you show a little
sympathy.  Talking about how your buddies were harassed by GamerGaters
or demanding evidence or noting that we can't know for certain if they
were harassed is wrong.  It dehumanizes the person in question,  and the
person you are speaking to will probably start talking about how many
more victims their side has than yours, which results in comparing body
counts and escalation (we do have much more victims than you, BTW).
Then tempers flare and everything gets worse.  Even looking at what you
wrote about it makes me angry, which is why I'm top posting like this.
I don't even want to scroll past it.  It puts me in a bad mind set.

Why not let people get mad, though?  Truth is more important than
people's feelings, isn't it?  Well, yes, when the truth is what is being
talked about.  If you don't have hard, cited evidence to bring to the
conversation then all you can do is either be silent or show some
humanity.  If you really want a less toxic environment and want people
to start taking online harassment more seriously then take it seriously
yourself.  Besides, what does a little ackgnowledgement and sympathy
cost you?  Nothing.  I mean, unless somebody is trying to shove it into
a Wikipedia article without attribution or something, just express some
sympathy and move on.  At the very least you will throw them off guard, LOL.

Now, we all make mistakes with this from time to time.  I'll be the
first to admit I've done it in the past, I've responded to somebody
getting harassed with "but look what happened to my friend!"  That's
wrong, though.  It took a while to realize it, but it was wrong.  It's
best to take one argument at a time and not act like previous
conversations set some kind of unchangeable precedent.  On top of that,
SJWs have been screaming all over the place that you guys want
harassment taken more seriously, but then you go and do things like
this.  It is hypocrisy to only take harassment seriously if it happens
to people who share the same ideology as you.  I would never minimize
the incidents where Sarkeesian or Quinn have been harassed.  When my
friends do it I tell them off, but they never do it because they notice
when I tear into somebody else for it.  That's really the only reason I
get nasty over this point.  I need people to pay attention to it.

You are a hero of mine, but I would absolutely rip into you if you did
this in public.  I did it just the other day when I was talking to Raph
Koster on my FB wall (not trying to name drop, I know him from
SecondLife, I'm no big shot).  Koster is another hero of mine.  He made
Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies and wrote A Theory of Fun.  Games
wouldn't be what they are today without him.  I mentioned some doxxings
on a status and he responded that his friends got doxxed too, without
acknowledging the doxxings I brought up.  I told him off ruthlessly,
which caught him by surprise with the sharp shift in tone.  Then we
talked and he agreed with me that the correct way to handle this kind of
thing is to show a little humanity.  All of my FB friends learned from
that post.  The right thing to do about your friends is to make a
seperate post if you want to talk about your friends who were hit.  Let
the other side have a little compassion when they are hurt.  That's what
I do for SJWs.  If a GamerGater doesn't show compassion feel free to
nail them on it.  The more people push this message the better.  It only
works if you sincerely do your best to set the example, though.

As for your other points... I never considered editing Zoe Quinn's
post.  I'm just working on one article at a time.  I also wasn't talking
about flooding wikipedia with crazy people.  I just figured if GamerGate
is a person then the more of us that contribute the better.  I mean, I
know we aren't a person now, but when I wrote that I thought we were.  I
didn't understand the categorization.  Thanks for clearing that up for
me.  More eyeballs is always good, right?  At the very least, we might
recruit a few more wikipedians, which I know you are always looking
for.  Also, I call them SJWs because when I first heard the term Social
Justice Warrior it was used as a badge of honor when I was working with
Occupy Wall St.  I worked outreach between 5 different camps, it was
quite an experience.  SJWs weren't always bad.  The media just twisted
them.  No way in hell will I ever call them feminists, because that
would be inaccurate.

I apologise for taking up your time but I have decided not to edit
Wikipedia.  I wasn't joking when I said that I feared for my safety but
I was going to do it anyway because I believe in you. When you cast
disdain on the transgendered teen who was doxxed and wanted to split
hairs over what is a 'real doxxing' that's just not reassuring.  To be
clear, I'm not blaming you for the doxxing, and I don't think you could
have prevented it or anything like that.  I'm just surprised at your
complete lack of concern for a Wikipedian who was placed into danger
over something she wrote on your web site.  Do you actually believe it's
fair game to connect a person's disconnected digital identities across
different sites in order to make them look bad like that?  That says
something about the culture at Wikipedia.  Maybe you have history with
her or something, I don't know, but even if you do have history with her
that does not excuse what happened.  From what I understand, when that
article was published and when Zoe linked to it, there was more than
enough information published for her to be IDed by her classmates, and
that's all it takes for a hate crime to happen.  Even if that isn't the
case, though, it does not matter what she did on Wikipedia, she does not
deserve to be doxxed. Having no concern at all for her is unacceptable
to me.  I won't edit your wiki and I will warn others that they might
want to consider leaving it alone as well (don't worry, I won't tell
them what you said, I'll make up a new argument).

Also, don't tell GamerGaters how to deal with non-cis people unless it's
obvious they are complete idiots about it, because that's just absurd.
All the non-cis devs are on our side of the fence, since Zoe Quinn and
other SJWs went after places like the Women in Gaming project because of
their twisted view of what transgendered rights should be, and they have
always went out of their way to specifically harass and forcibly out
trans people. SJWs are known TERFs.  If you want to know how to treat
non-cis people you need to follow GamerGate's example and treat them
like human beings.  That teen was a she.  Calling her a he is insulting
to all civilized people.  You might as well drop an N-bomb.

I'll stick to Twitter and 8chan (as long as I can stomach it) and spend
my time writing messages to gaming advertisers rather than on
Wikipedia.  Your article will stay extreme, which is good for my cause.
I mean, an unbiased article based on facts would be better, but barring
that an extreme article that everybody can see is extreme is fine.  It
hurts your credibility and boosts ours. If you want it fixed then fix it
yourself.

I have to be honest, I'm really disappointed in you.  I guess I kind of
had you on a pedestal or something.  I stuck up for you to luddite
professors (I think I lost a letter grade for that once) and I edited
articles for you... not that I'm a prolific Wikipedian, but I care about
the project.  That doesn't mean you owe me anything, just... I was kind
of hoping you were more human or something.  You probably get too much
hate mail.  Trust me, reading that crap will make you callous.

One last thing, though... I'm kind of trying to telegraph this to your
side because I want to find a way to stop the conflict before it really
goes too far.  The end game for this is to signal boost SJWs into the
mainstream around black Friday in order to scare parents into not buying
video games for their kids.  There is a chance we will tank the market,
but more than that we will activate the big money at EA and Ubisoft to
come in and crush your message, because your message can't hold up in a
larger arena under that much pressure.  I don't want to do that.  Here's
my problem with the plan... first, I don't like advertiser influence,
and we will be increasing their influence if we do this.  Second, I
don't think any sane person actually wants to get rid of feminism in the
games culture.  We need feminists because we do have problems.  We just
don't need to be disenfranchised over it. Thirdly, if you look at the
financials, the AAA industry is not well.  I think the damage could be
more extensive than we anticipate.  Nobody wants developers and good
journalists to get more pink slips.  At the same time, we are
disenfranchised and backed into a corner (I don't actually care if you
believe me when I tell you I was chased to Twitter by an angry mob,
because it's the truth, I really can't stand twitter).

Anyway, if you can think of anything to help bring us all back together
now would be a great time to try it.  I've been scratching my head over
this for a while but can't come up with anything, so I'm just gonna go
with this Black Friday plan unless something big changes.

Smooth sailing!
~The Leader of GamerGate

P.S. - Here is a gamergate timeline I am working on.  It's not done yet,
but what is on it is reliable and fully cited.
http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/332946/Gamergate/


On 9/28/2014 12:10 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> And now that you've found my public email address I'm responding from my
> private one.  This one is slightly better but still gets swamped. :-)
>
> I'd like to ask that this conversation be kept private, not because it
> is particularly secret in any way but because I need to write casually
> and simply and if I were writing for public consumption.
>
> Pastebin stuck a bunch of numbers into your writing so the formatting
> below is weird.  I'll just ignore that. :)
>
>
>>   To be honest, I am not just scared of loosing my
>>      account.  I am afraid of being doxxed and threatened in real life.
>>       That is what SJWs did to a transgendered teen wikipedia editor just
>>      weeks ago.  The following link is redacted for obvious reasons.  The
>>      article on Wikipediocracy still exists, but it has been edited since
>>      this screen shot has been taken.
>>   6.
>>
>>   7.
>>      https://i.imgur.com/He7UCVW.jpg
> Some things need to be said about this:
>
> First, Wikipediocracy is an attack site against Wikipedia, generally
> hated by the Wikipedia community.  They are, like many attack groups,
> wildly inconsistent.  One day they'll criticize us because someone's
> personal information got posted and get into a lather that we don't do
> enough to protect people.  The next day, they're doxxing someone.
>
> Second, it is pretty clear to anyone who has looked at all the evidence
> that the user in question is not at Wikipedia to build an encyclopedia.
>   Doxxing to a home address (or even city) is rude and borderline creepy
> but noting that he's active on the Internet in highly misogynist places
> is a perfectly valid observation.  Questions that have been raised as to
> whether he's really transgendered (a claim it has been said was only
> made at Wikipedia and seemingly quite contrary to his online persona
> otherwise) give me some pause as well, but are not really particularly
> important.
>
> (That last point is difficult to make with delicacy.  It is my personal
> belief that, for the most part, we should simply accept people's claims
> about their personal identity without question.  It's normally quite
> rude to claim that someone isn't *really* transgendered or whatever.
> But it's a sticky issue because it's also a huge icky disgusting thing
> if someone pretends to be transgendered and then behaves in awful ways
> as part of a 4chan-style trolling campaign.  So, let's leave it aside
> for the most part but put a small footnote in our minds to be wary.)
>
> People who keep posting his topic ban as a "gotcha" against Wikipedia do
> not have my sympathy.  He's exactly the kind of person we should topic ban.
>
> Third, unless the redacted bits contained much more specific information
> than it looks, the doxxing was rude and borderline creepy but not
> actually a full blown DOXXING with home address, social security
> numbers, work phone numbers, and so on.  It's basically just a bit of
> googling and noting publicly available information.
>
>
>>   9.
>>      Zoe Quinn linked to this article on her twitter, to spread the
>>      doxxing information in order to put this transgendered teen in as
>>      much physical danger as possible.
>> 10.
>>
>> 11.
>>      Here are more details on this, with more links:
>>       http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2fvt9n/zoe_links_a_doxx_to_wikipedia_editors_who_tried/
> That person X took action Y on the Internet does not imply that it
> belongs in their biography nor in an article about the wider incidents
> that give it context.  I say this not to argue that it should NOT be
> included but to give you guidance on the ONLY way to get it included if
> you think it should be.  And that is: you need high quality third party
> reliable sources who talk about it as being relevant to the story.
>
> Now, having said that, that's just editing advice.  But let me go a step
> further and argue why I think it should NOT be included and call your
> attention to some pretty concerning bias in your thinking.  I ask you to
> really focus on this next paragraph and don't respond immediately but
> just to sit with it.  Have lunch on it, dinner on it.
>
> Your item 9 above contains two separate claims.  First, that Zoe Quinn
> linked to this article on her twitter.  Second, it contains a fairly
> spectacular and evidence-free personal attack on her by attributing to
> her motives that are not provable and not likely to be true.
>
> "to spread the doxxing information in order to put this transgendered
> teen in as much physical danger as possible."
>
> I don't know of any evidence in any of Zoe Quinn's biography that would
> even begin to suggest that she would want to place anyone in "as much
> physical danger as possible".  Indeed, it seems very unlikely.
>
> If you ask me what is the most likely is that she clicked on the
> Wikipediocracy link, read the turgid and boring prose just long enough
> to see that it was generally favorable to herself, and posted the link
> without finishing it or noticing the doxxing.
>
> Because it is not a full blown doxxing, there is virtually no chance
> that anyone was put into any physical danger by the article, as rude and
> creepy as it is.
>
> Ok last point on this and this is the part that I want you to really sit
> with: If you come to this with a mindset that "OMG SHE TRIED TO GET HIM
> HURT" then clearly that would strike you as something of great
> relevance.  But if you step back and look at the facts, all she did was
> tweet a link to a bad article.  That's not really of major biographical
> interest.
>
>> 13.
>>      That is what we are dealing with.  We get doxxed and physically
>>      threatened constantly, especially the transgendered among us.  I
>>      could ask what Wikipedia does about these kinds of issues, but I'm
>>      not sure what you can do.  Wikipediocracy is not part of Wikipedia.
> That's for damn sure.
>
>> 15.
>>      So I am scared for my safety but I'm going to try to make things
>>      better anyway, because I believe in you, Jimmy.  You are the
>>      greatest educator of our generation.  The world would be much more
>>      stupid without your work, so when you tell me that Wikipedia is safe
>>      and that I should help fix things I'm going to listen to you.  If I
>>      get doxxed then I'm out.  I won't risk my health and well being for
>>      Wikipedia.  If it comes to that then the Wikipedia Foundation will
>>      have to do something about the toxic environment before I'll come
>>      back.  Unless I get doxxed and/or threateaned, though, I'm going to
>>      give you the benefit of the doubt, because you deserve it.
> In terms of assessing your personal risk, I can't really help you.
> Certainly the Wikipedians are quite firm against that kind of behavior
> and so I don't see what the risk is considering that you are very vocal
> on twitter.  If someone wants to go after you, it seems they already
> could, and if you come to Wikipedia and make thoughtful arguments then
> the chances of trouble seem quite small.  But yes, you should make that
> determination for yourself.
>
>> 17.
>>      If any of my #gamergate friends are reading this:  I urge you to
>>      also give Jimmy Wales the benefit of the doubt and get involved as
>>      well.  We can't go on attacking everybody who gets their news about
>>      the world from the New York Post and Gamasutra.  It's not their
>>      fault they don't know any better.  We have to give more people the
>>      chance to learn the truth.  We need more voices and more compassion,
>>      even when SJWs and the press attack us from every side with violence
>>      and smear campaigns, dehumanizing us to deny us compassion, we need
>>      to stand proud and tell the truth.
> I would recommend in your interactions with the outside world that you
> drop the term "SJWs".  It gives off a militant and combative "us versus
> them" vibe that causes people to rightly doubt the objectivity of what
> you are saying.  I think it does you a major disservice in terms of
> trying to get the message out to the wider world.  (New York Times, etc.)
>
> There is a view, not correct but not entirely without foundation, that
> there is a massive huge community of virulently reactionary dimwits who
> want games with hapless damsels with cartoon-hot bodies and all the
> rest, who get upset with any criticism or commentary about the problems
> with that and lash out at "feminazis", "SJWs", etc.  You and I both know
> that this is not the majority of the gaming world by a long shot, but it
> is a group that absolutely does exist and have been doing a lot of harm
> to the reputation of games and the gaming industry and the gaming community.
>
> It may be a convenient shorthand for internal discussions, but even
> there I think it's dangerous.  Labeling people makes it harder to make
> distinctions among them.  We see this in the unfortunately dismal state
> of political discourse in the US all the time.  "liberal" and
> "conservative" are thrown out as epithets in a way that completely
> blinds people to real policy issues.  It becomes a... video game where
> you shoot the bad guys and save the good guys.  Not helpful to real
> progress in society.
>
> Here's a great example from recent times.  Congressman Cory Gardner is
> running for Senate in Colorado as a Republican.  I don't support or
> oppose him.  I'm just observing the discourse.
>
> The Democrats trotted out the usual playbook that he's a crazed right
> winger who wants to ban birth control.  Problem is, he's in favor of
> wide access to contraception and even proposes that the birth control
> pill be made available without a prescription.
>
> I'm sure there's plenty to love or hate about the guy but the point is
> the *label* of "right wing Republican" caused the debate to deteriorate
> into nonsense.
>
> Similarly, labeling people as "SJWs" is not conducive to serious respect
> and consideration of a variety of viewpoints of people who have varying
> degrees of concern and criticism of gaming culture.
>
> (I've removed the long and mostly speculative discussion of who fucked
> who and when because I don't think the blow by blow is relevant -
> particularly not when pieced together from various blog posts - again,
> high quality reliable third party sources are key.)
>
>>      These appearances of impropriety exist.  No neutral person can claim
>>      otherwise.
> I think that's the main valid point in what you are saying but the point
> and should be made without sounding like a personal digging into some
> woman's sex life.  Let me explain further.
>
> The problems with corruption in the magazine industry are rampant.  Let
> me give a completely separate example so as to make this less emotional.
>
> Boats.
>
> I like boats.  I have a small family speedboat (19 footer) and I'm
> fortunate in my life to know a lot of super wealthy people and sometimes
> get invited to visit on really big boats.  So I read boat magazines.
> Mainly I read ones relevant to me, i.e. about normal family boats -
> maybe I'll move up to a 24 footer next year!)
>
> But the one thing I know for sure is that when I'm reading boat
> magazines I'm not reading independent hard hitting journalism with
> quality reviews.  I'm reading advertiser-supported industry-friendly
> borderline-pr puffery.  Part of that is just natural: the people who go
> into journalism at boat magazines love boats too!  So they are naturally
> positive.  But part of that is just that the whole industry is "in bed"
> together.
>
> I mean that in every way.  Loaner boats.  Weekend jaunts.  They know
> each other - attend the same boat shows, build relationships.  It's
> party unavoidable but partly it's a fertile ground for corruption.
>
> That's true of a lot of "subculture" journalism.
>
> NOW.  Let's switch back to gaming.  There's a massive problem here as
> well.  But the problem is not with some relatively unimportant indy game
> developer and who she slept with, the problem is with massive issues
> with major game magazines being industry-compromised.
>
> So the problem as I see it is that lots of people in #gamergate claim to
> be about that corruption bit, but instead are massively obsessed with
> Zoe Quinn's sex life.
>
> So, is there an appearance of impropriety?  Sure and the details don't
> matter.  An ex boyfriend with little honor decided to go public in a
> vicious way about a sad breakup and a firestorm ensued.  But it isn't
> really IMPORTANT in the way that massive corruption in the magazine
> industry is.
>
>
>  From here on I'm going to try to stick to specific editing advice and
> advice about talking to the community.  I will sound like a broken
> record: it's all about sources, sources, sources.  Your analysis or mine
> may be interesting to us, but not relevant for Wikipedia.
>
>
>>      First of all, the title of the article is misleading.  Gamergate is
>>      not a controversy.  To be perfectly objective, GamerGate is a
>>      hashtag.
> What do reliable sources call it?  To me it is both a controversy and a
> hashtag.  And in a way, it's a movement.  One of the difficulties is
> that there is really no way to say "Supporters of GamerGate believe..."
> because there is no central authority or manifesto that people sign up to.
>
>>   The #GamerGate movement has actually undergone a few
>>      different names, informally.  Before #GamerGate it was Burgers and
>>      Fries.  Before that it was some operation to save TFYC (the specific
>>      name of which slips my mind at the moment).  Before that it was
>>      something involving WizardChan or CYChan or Tumblr, the details of
>>      which are difficult to source.  You could accurately refer to
>>      GamerGate as a movement, or one name for a movement, but it is
>>      absolutely not a controversy.
> When hundreds of people are screaming at each other all over the
> internet, yeah, it's a controversy.
>
> Here's a google news link:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=gamergate+controversy&oq=gamergate+controversy&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.3094j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#q=gamergate+controversy&tbm=nws
>
> Virtually every source - including those with NO ties to the
> publications involve in the controversy - calls it a controversy.
>
> I recommend not trying to change the name of the article.
>
>>      Second of all, the article says that GamerGate is about, "a
>>      controversy in video game culture concerning ingrained[1] issues of
>>      sexism and misogyny in the gamer community and journalistic ethics
>>      in the online gaming press, particularly conflicts of interest
>>      between video game journalists and developers."
>> 46.
>>
>> 47.
>>      That is incorrect and oversimplifying things a lot.  It deliberately
>>      skews towards the SJW perspective.  GamerGate is a movement that
>>      relates directly to a dozen different things, and the situations we
>>      are addressing change constantly.  As more problems pop up we do our
>>      best to handle them.  We are concerned about sexism and about
>>      censorship.  I don't have numbers on this, but it is my impression
>>      that most of us have been censored for trying to discuss things like
>>      Feminist Frequency honestly.  On most forums, SJWs won't allow us to
>>      disagree with Sarkeesian's assertions, no matter how outlandish they
>>      might be.  For example, she says that female corpses are sexy but
>>      male corpses are not.  She says that games shape our reality and
>>      spread misogyny (the statistical correlation for that goes in the
>>      opposite direction Sarkeesian claims).  We can not deviate from that
>>      message on forums such as reddit or 4chan or the something awful
>>      forums without risking a ban (or worse if we aren't anonymous).
> Sources?  Again this is critical.  Your opinions (or mine) aren't really
> relevant.
>
> As a side matter, I think you are mistaken actually.  I've seen vibrant
> discussions at reddit in which people DO disagree with Sarkeesian.  And
> no one is getting banned for that.
>
> I caution you to be careful with language like "SJWs won't allow us to
> disagree" unless there is an actual ban on it.  If there's isn't, then
> it would be more accurate to say "SJWs won't allow us to disagree
> without them piping up to say we are wrong."  Very different things -
> one is silencing, the other is debate.
>
>> 48.
>>
>> 49.
>>      That's not all we are concerned about.  We are concerned about our
>>      journalists and the managers of game development companies sexually
>>      exploiting young ladies like Zoe Quinn.  We are concerned about game
>>      development contests like the IGF being rigged.  We are concerned
>>      about being disenfranchised through smear campaigns and censorship
>>      and old boy networks controlling our media.  Why do you think we are
>>      all on a hash tag?  You really think twitter was our first choice to
>>      discuss such complicated issues?  No.  We were driven to twitter
>>      because we can not have rational, honest conversations elsewhere,
>>      and the media won't discuss any of these issues with us honestly.
>>       That's why we are stuck on this hash tag trying to convey complex
>>      ideas 140 characters at a time.
> "We were driven to twitter because we can not have rational, honest
> conversations elsewhere" - that doesn't ring true to me, are you sure?
> The last I checked there are hundreds of wide open places for such
> discussions.  There's no reason to be forced into 140 characters.
>
> Start a blog (many platforms available)
> Start a subreddit
> Start a wikia (Wikia is very gamer friendly obviously)
> Get prominent people in the community to write editorials for non-gaming
> media like newspapers
> Start a standalone website (many tech savvy people in gamergate community)
>
> My point is that if you step outside the gg circle, and think about how
> it sounds to an outsider, it's not very convincing to say "We had to go
> to twitter because it's the only place we can express ourselves".
>
> Notice that I didn't say "go to Wikipedia" although I am encouraging you
> personally to do so, because I think that's a different thing.  If you
> want to gather like minded individuals to thoughtfully campaign for
> something, there are many platforms for it.  Wikipedia is about writing
> an encyclopedia so I strongly discourage campaigning there.
>
>> 51.
>>      The #GamerGate article asserts that this is about our objections to
>>      casual gamers, which is complete bullshit.  First of all, we all
>>      enjoy casual games.  Casual game enthusiasts don't actually go to
>>      places like Gamasutra to learn about casual games, though, because
>>      places like Gamasutra do not report on casual games.  I wish they
>>      did, because I hate it when I buy a crappy android game.  Nobody
>>      reviews them, though (not well, at least).  The best we have are
>>      Google Play store customer reviews, which aren't that reliable.
> Well so I don't know what you read but as of this moment, the Wikipedia
> article does not say "this is about our objections to casual gamers".
> And we should draw a distinction between casual games and causal gamers,
> right?
>
> Casual games are games like you mention - android games.  Angry Birds, etc.
>
> Casual gamers are people like me - when I play games I tend to play
> traditional deep games. (Currently Civ and Minecraft).  But I'm not part
> of the gaming subculture - I just play games sometimes.
>
> Right now, though, the Wikipedia entry only mentions this by way of
> broad contextual background.
>
>>       Since the beginning of this, even today, the games press has not
>>      actually changed their focus to casual games.  They did declare that
>>      gamers are dead, which is not a way to talk about casual games more.
>>       It is a way to spit in our faces when we expressed concern that
>>      their ethical standards are too lax.  That is why their traffic is
>>      down and why advertisers are pulling away from funding them.
> Well, that and Wikia's traffic growth means that the best journalism
> about games is written by gamers themselves. :-)
>
> So going back to the "casual" thing - reread that whole section and
> let's have another think about.  This time read it with the distinction
> I made above between casual gamers and casual games in mind.
>
> I think the key is that it is true that as games have gone more
> mainstream (serious games, not just casual ones) there has been a wider
> audience and more attention paid (by everyone) to issues of gender
> representation.  That strikes me as obviously true and obviously
> important for a newcomer to the topic who is reading Wikipedia to
> understand.
>
>> 52.
>>
>> 53.
>>      The #GamerGate article has a million other issues.  It does not
>>      explain the history of the #GamerGate tag, for example.
> Is there a reliable source for that history?  If not, then I think your
> efforts might be well directed to trying to make that happen.  Because
> it just isn't right for Wikipedia to do original historical research.
>
>>      Let me know if you want me to cite any of this, because I have
>>      citations for everything I'm saying.  This post is getting kind of
>>      long, though, so for brevity and readability I'm skipping citations
>>      for now.
> Sure, I understand.  Just know that in all discussions with Wikipedians,
> you're very well advised to cite everything and to work VERY VERY hard
> to make sure that whatever you say is fully backed up in the citation
> and indeed if there is some controversial statement in the original
> source, you'll want to say something milder.
>
>>      The #GamerGate article also never mentions the numerous charities we
>>      have contributed to, to the Women in Gaming project and to fight
>>      cancer and to fight teen suicide.
> References.  (I know, I'm a broken record.)
>
>>      There are more problems and rules this article breaks.  It is
>>      advocacy, scandal mongering, it's not an encyclopedic subject
>>      because anything you say about #GamerGate today could easily be
>>      false in a week (Wikipedia is not a newspaper), the citations are
>>      almost all to editorial opinion pieces and... much more.  Citing
>>      Leigh Alexander's opinion as reliable on a #GamerGate article is
>>      like citing Hitler's opinion on an article about Jews.  She is a
>>      bigger enemy of #GamerGate than Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian.
>>       Anyway, I'll get into all of those details on Wikipedia talk pages.
> When speaking to the Wikipedians I strongly recommend avoiding
> inflammatory rhetoric about Hitler and Jews.
>
> Actually, I recommend that to you as a life recommendation generally.
>
> Hitler killed some six million Jews.  Gassed them to death, shot them,
> burned them, buried them in mass graves.  Did all that while engaging in
> a massive violent war that killed tens of millions more.
>
> I had to look up who Leigh Alexander is but I have to imagine that she
> probably hasn't killed anyone.
>
> Extreme rhetoric like that turns people off.  And it turns people off
> for a good reason: it's fucking stupid.
>
>>      I can't post to the #GamerGate talk page, though.  Here's why:
>> 62.
>>
>> 63.
>>      The #GamerGate article is tagged as a biography of a living person.
>>       I don't understand how a controversy can be a person (back to the
>>      misleading title issue).  Anyway, if it is about #GamerGate as a
>>      person then I can't edit it because it's about me.  I am a member of
>>      #GamerGate.
> That's not a valid argument at all.  It doesn't even contain any actual
> relevant facts!
>
> First, the article is not "tagged as a biography".  The tag says: "This
> article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if
> it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons."
>
> Second, being a person who posted to a hashtag on twitter doesn't make
> the article about you.  Now, I'm going under an assumption here that you
> are not DIRECTLY involved PERSONALLY with the specific details.  That
> is, you don't work at one of the gaming magazine, the article doesn't
> talk about you personally as a developer, or whatever like that.
>
> No one would seriously make the argument you have made - so don't worry
> about it.
>
>>   Now, I could disregard that and post to the talk page
>>      anyway, but that won't help anything.  It's just sleazy to edit your
>>      own article, especially when you don't disclose who you are.
> Unless I've missed something the article isn't about you in the relevant
> sense.  That's just not a valid argument.
>
> It's like saying "Oh no, I can't edit
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_the_United_States because
> I'm a citizen of the United States."  That's just an invalid reading of
> policy.
>
>
>>      That
>>      means that anybody editing this article is probably an opponent of
>>      #GamerGate, since we would not deface our own article by editing it.
>>       We are not ignorant thugs.  That means that our voices so far have
>>      been muted and will continue to be muted unless the article is
>>      re-categorized.
> Except that, as I said, the article is not categorized as a biography
> anyway.
>
> The point of that tag is this: people can't insert unsourced negative
> information about Zoe Quinn, her ex-boyfriend, specific people on ANY
> side of this.  This applies to everyone no matter what their personal
> views are.
>
>>      Correct me if I'm wrong, Jimmy, but it seems to me  that the right
>>      place to complain about articles about yourself is on the
>>      Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, which is located here:
>> 68.
>>
>> 69.
>>      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard
> That's not going to go over well as people will find the argument silly.
>   "Hi, I'm posting my complaint here because the Gamergate article is
> about me!"  Huh?  No, it actually isn't about you.  (Again, unless I
> missed something!)
>
> I just checked and the name "The Leader of GamerGate" doesn't exist in the article.
>
>>      What I plan to do is to get my concerns all together and post them
>>      to this board some time tomorrow (it will take a while to write).
> I recommend a different approach.  Don't write up a long long post.
> Most people will find it difficult to get through it all and it is
> likely to get derailed if someone finds one upsetting thing in what
> you've written, thus causing drama to ensue.  Humans are humans.
>
> Instead you can make internal notes for yourself about changes you'd
> like to propose.  Break it down into say 10 items.  Or 5 items.  However
> many.  Make each one conceptually a unit.
>
> Then pick the easiest one first.  Run your proposal by me so I can
> advise you on the wording.  I have a good ear for what upsets people,
> and you tend (as pointed out up above) to use pretty over the top rhetoric.
>
> Do the first one.  Make the edit, post the justification to the talk
> page.  Be around to answer objections or inquiries.  Let things settle
> down - if you've chosen wisely, things will settle down quickly.  And
> you'll learn a bit about the people there rather than thinking of them
> as some horrible feminist SJW "other".
>
> Then do another one.  And another one.  Keep each item focussed.  Be
> prepared to lose a few debates on your weaker points, or points which
> have been weakly documented in reliable sources.
>
>>   I
>>      will then start spreading the word to my #GamerGate friends to do
>>      the same, so that we can all be heard on the board.  One of us can't
>>      talk for everybody, so we can try to get as many voices involved as
>>      possible.  I will do my best to get every voice I can to post to
>>      this board.  I am sure the admins will fix the problems when they
>>      hear from us.
> You'll be better off understanding that sheer numbers mean very little
> to Wikipedia.  We are pretty immune to pressure.  And unless you can
> find people you absolutely trust to go slow and write with calmness,
> know that inviting people to contribute who are warriors is just not
> going to be helpful.
>
>>      Hopefully, they will just delete the article, because the subject is
>>      really not encyclopedic in nature.  I could understand moving it to
>>      WikiNews, but leaving it on the encyclopedia seems wrong to me.
> It easily meets our notability criteria, so that isn't going to happen.
>
>>      Anyway, thank you for reading this long message.  I will do my best
>>      to keep my Wikipedian bearing and be bold (but from behind an
>>      anonymous proxy if possible... bold doesn't mean stupid).
> You're likely to have trouble editing from an anonymous proxy as we
> generally ban them.  (The banning isn't perfect so you may find a way,
> but it's pretty common that proxies are banned.)
>
> Log in to your account (you have one, right?) and edit from there.  In
> this way, the only people who can see your ip address are "checkusers"
> and there are VERY strict rules and lots of transparency around the use
> of the checkuser tool.  There has never been a problem with it.
>
> --Jimbo
>